Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2009 Dec;35(12):762-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.031781.
To investigate life scientists' views of accountability and the ethical and societal implications of research.
Qualitative focus group and one-on-one interviews.
45 Stanford University life scientists, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty.
Two main themes were identified in participants' discussions of accountability: (1) the "how" of science and (2) the "why" of science. The "how" encompassed the internal conduct of research including attributes such as honesty and independence. The "why," or the motivation for conducting research, was two-tiered: first was the desire to positively impact the research community and science itself, and second was an interest in positively impacting the external community, broadly referred to as society. Participants noted that these motivations were influenced by the current systems of publications, grants and funding, thereby supporting a complex notion of boundary-setting between science and non-science. In addition, while all participants recognised the "how" of science and the two tiers of "why," scientists expressed the need to prioritise these domains of accountability. This prioritisation was related to a researcher's position in the academic career trajectory and to the researcher's subsequent "perceived proximity" to scientific or societal concerns. Our findings therefore suggest the need for institutional change to inculcate early-stage researchers with a broader awareness of the implications of their research. The peer review processes for funding and publication could be effective avenues for encouraging scientists to broaden their views of accountability to society.
调查生命科学家对问责制的看法，以及研究的伦理和社会影响。
定性焦点小组和一对一访谈。
斯坦福大学的 45 名生命科学家，包括研究生、博士后研究员和教师。
在参与者讨论问责制时，确定了两个主要主题：（1）科学的“方法”和（2）科学的“目的”。“方法”包括诚实和独立等属性，涵盖了研究的内部进行。“目的”，即进行研究的动机，有两个层次：一是积极影响研究界和科学本身，二是对积极影响外部社区（广义上称为社会）的兴趣。参与者指出，这些动机受到出版物、资助和资金现行系统的影响，从而支持了科学与非科学之间的复杂界限设定概念。此外，尽管所有参与者都认识到科学的“方法”和“目的”的两个层次，但科学家们表示需要优先考虑这些问责领域。这种优先级与研究人员在学术职业轨迹中的位置以及研究人员随后与科学或社会问题的“感知接近度”有关。因此，我们的研究结果表明，需要进行机构改革，使早期研究人员更广泛地意识到他们研究的影响。资助和出版的同行评审过程可以成为鼓励科学家拓宽对社会的问责观念的有效途径。
